I have written about the creepy aspect of this book before, but there is another part that has been bothering me even more over time, especially because the book is targeted at teens. Twilight is once again a story romanticizing the "bad boy". Edward Cullen, the hero of the book is charming, handsome, controlling and really dangerous. He could just crush Bella, the heroin to death, if he wasn't careful. He is, of course a vampire, so there are other ways he can hurt Bella too. He stops himself from hurting his lady-love by sheer exercise of extreme self-control, because he loves her passionately and wouldn't dream of hurting her. We all know too well that in such relationships, either the self-control or the love eventually falls by the wayside and the girl gets hurt.
Young girls in their formative years, and I have seen 10-11 year olds reading this book, can really get caught up and admire the father-figurish Cullen who protects and controls Bella's life. The parents of these girls however need to talk to their daughters about the inherent dangers of such relationships in real life, and how the dangerous and controlling types might not be the best choice for a partner. Otherwise the Rhiannas of tomorrow will keep going out with Chris Browns because we keep glorifying the "bad boys" and say nothing about young women making bad choices.
Raising kids in a non-native environment while constantly worrying about striking the right balance.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Can we keep government out of our lives?
I have politics on my mind in the wake of the stunning results form the Massachusetts election. There are many reasons why Dems lost that election but I have serious doubts that there will be any serious introspection to analyze the causes among the career politicians. That is a topic for another day but today after getting an earful about the reason being public support for free-market economy and anger against socialism, I feel compelled to point out that whether we like it not government policy shapes our lives much more deeply than we realize. Let us examine some basic human necessities.
Food: Americans currently consume a heavily corn-based diet, not because they love it, or beacause it has been their staple diet for centuries or because they are aware of its health benefits or lack thereof. Corn is directly and indirectly in lot of our foods because corn is cheap, and corn is cheap not because market forces make it so but because of direct government subsidies.
Health: The present American health care system is as far from free-market system as could be. Even more socialist countries than the US have much more consumer-based health care systems. Let us examine the roots of this system. Most people in America afford their health-care because of insurance provided by their employers. The employer-funded health insurance system came about because in 1954 Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. In case of both Medicare and employer-based health insurance it is the government, that is directly or indirectly subsidizing health insurance, note that it is the insurance, not the care that is getting subsidized. However, this is also the reason why health care costs are getting out of control - the consumer is not directly exposed to the cost of the product they use, meaning that the health care system is not at all controlled by free-market forces. I encourage you to read this enlightening article if you want more.
Housing: It is the government tax subsidies, and the government's creation of entities such a Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that enable the dream of home ownership for most Americans. These entities also assumed all the risk of the downside of these mortgages and thus turned mortgage-based bonds essentially into US Government backed bonds, which then Wall Street traded with impunity. Free market forces came into play and exploited a market that was skewed by the government.
Another facet of housing is the design of our towns and cities. Urban planning or lack thereof is caused by the fact that we can drive everywhere for cheap. If gasoline was expensive, we would have dense cities with public transit systems in a heartbeat. However, price of gasoline is not determined by free-market forces. Gasoline is kept cheap by the government.
I very much like individual accountability and responsibility but I do believe government plays a central role in the shaping the future, but career politicians intent on saving their jobs cannot look past the next election. Partisan hacks on one side will blame Coakley for losing and mock the idiots who voted for pickup-truck-driving-cosmo-centerfold, or on the other side heave a sigh of relief that now government will be kept out of health-care and Medicare will be saved!
I think we need drastic measures. A viable third party? Term limits in house & senate? Any ideas?
Food: Americans currently consume a heavily corn-based diet, not because they love it, or beacause it has been their staple diet for centuries or because they are aware of its health benefits or lack thereof. Corn is directly and indirectly in lot of our foods because corn is cheap, and corn is cheap not because market forces make it so but because of direct government subsidies.
Health: The present American health care system is as far from free-market system as could be. Even more socialist countries than the US have much more consumer-based health care systems. Let us examine the roots of this system. Most people in America afford their health-care because of insurance provided by their employers. The employer-funded health insurance system came about because in 1954 Congress passed a law making employer contributions to employee health plans tax-deductible without making the resulting benefits taxable to employees. In case of both Medicare and employer-based health insurance it is the government, that is directly or indirectly subsidizing health insurance, note that it is the insurance, not the care that is getting subsidized. However, this is also the reason why health care costs are getting out of control - the consumer is not directly exposed to the cost of the product they use, meaning that the health care system is not at all controlled by free-market forces. I encourage you to read this enlightening article if you want more.
Housing: It is the government tax subsidies, and the government's creation of entities such a Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae that enable the dream of home ownership for most Americans. These entities also assumed all the risk of the downside of these mortgages and thus turned mortgage-based bonds essentially into US Government backed bonds, which then Wall Street traded with impunity. Free market forces came into play and exploited a market that was skewed by the government.
Another facet of housing is the design of our towns and cities. Urban planning or lack thereof is caused by the fact that we can drive everywhere for cheap. If gasoline was expensive, we would have dense cities with public transit systems in a heartbeat. However, price of gasoline is not determined by free-market forces. Gasoline is kept cheap by the government.
I very much like individual accountability and responsibility but I do believe government plays a central role in the shaping the future, but career politicians intent on saving their jobs cannot look past the next election. Partisan hacks on one side will blame Coakley for losing and mock the idiots who voted for pickup-truck-driving-cosmo-centerfold, or on the other side heave a sigh of relief that now government will be kept out of health-care and Medicare will be saved!
I think we need drastic measures. A viable third party? Term limits in house & senate? Any ideas?
Saturday, January 16, 2010
Lessons of 3 idiots, really?
I recently saw an Indian movie called 3 Idiots, that has been a big hit in India and among the Indian diaspora abroad. The movie is a critique of an aspect of Indian society that I had mentioned in an earlier post - the incessant pressure on young people from every aspect of the society to get ahead, at the expense of their own dreams and aspirations. The film is mostly enjoyable because the funny parts balance out the preachy parts. All of a sudden Indians are talking about this. Every day I see chain emails with subjects such as "Lessons from 3 Idiots." I am happy that this film has started a national conversation on the topic, but what I am really surprised by is that Indians are behaving as if until they saw this movie, it had never occurred to them that the academic system put too much pressure on young people.
However, what the film presents is a very simplistic solution "let education institutions expand minds and let young people pursue their dreams". It is easy to say this but to turn into a reality, it needs support from many components of the society.
A person can freely pursue her dreams only if she is also given the freedom to fail, and opportunities to start over. This the Indian society seriously lacks. Failure is viewed harshly and opportunities to start over are non-existent. There are age-restrictions on everything from college admissions to job applications. Take the example of one of the characters in the film who wants to become a wildlife photographer rather than an engineer, and viola he becomes immensely successful at it. What if he didn't? What if after pursuing photography for 5-10 years he realized that he really should have pursued engineering - no college in India would take him. The seeds of a passion need nourishment to turn into a flourishing tree. Somebody interested in wildlife photography would need to feed their passion by reading magazines such as National Geographic to learn more about the possibilities. Yet, until about 10 years ago a National Geographic magazine was not only unaffordable for the average Indian middle class but also unavailable. There wasn't any awareness either - growing up, I could count on one hand the career options I thought were available to me.
With the boom in economy of the last few years there are a lot more opportunities in modern India, and with the advent of the internet a lot more awareness. There still aren't any well-stocked public libraries that you could access for resources. Same goes for sports. There are no junior sports leagues, and unless your parents can afford to put you in some special training lessons, there aren't any opportunities to learn even if sports are your passion. While I was growing up participation in sports was looked down upon, and most children were encouraged to study rather than waste time playing.
And still the society has no appreciation for originality or creativity. Say, you were artistic and wanted to pursue art. Your creativity would have been destroyed by the time you got to middle school because the art teachers, if you were fortunate to have any, would have insisted you do things a certain way, and only the children who could produce an exact replica of some painting in a book would be considered good artists. What any "art lesson" in India would teach you is skill or craftsmanship, but it would not let you expand your creativity. Most India musicians become very skilled at their craft by rigorous practice, but are they creative?
This happens to be the main reason that holds me back when I consider moving back to India. Everybody praises the education system, and how the curriculum there is much advanced. I'd rather have a somewhat inferior system, but one that encourages exploration and provides room for failures and fresh starts.
However, what the film presents is a very simplistic solution "let education institutions expand minds and let young people pursue their dreams". It is easy to say this but to turn into a reality, it needs support from many components of the society.
A person can freely pursue her dreams only if she is also given the freedom to fail, and opportunities to start over. This the Indian society seriously lacks. Failure is viewed harshly and opportunities to start over are non-existent. There are age-restrictions on everything from college admissions to job applications. Take the example of one of the characters in the film who wants to become a wildlife photographer rather than an engineer, and viola he becomes immensely successful at it. What if he didn't? What if after pursuing photography for 5-10 years he realized that he really should have pursued engineering - no college in India would take him. The seeds of a passion need nourishment to turn into a flourishing tree. Somebody interested in wildlife photography would need to feed their passion by reading magazines such as National Geographic to learn more about the possibilities. Yet, until about 10 years ago a National Geographic magazine was not only unaffordable for the average Indian middle class but also unavailable. There wasn't any awareness either - growing up, I could count on one hand the career options I thought were available to me.
With the boom in economy of the last few years there are a lot more opportunities in modern India, and with the advent of the internet a lot more awareness. There still aren't any well-stocked public libraries that you could access for resources. Same goes for sports. There are no junior sports leagues, and unless your parents can afford to put you in some special training lessons, there aren't any opportunities to learn even if sports are your passion. While I was growing up participation in sports was looked down upon, and most children were encouraged to study rather than waste time playing.
And still the society has no appreciation for originality or creativity. Say, you were artistic and wanted to pursue art. Your creativity would have been destroyed by the time you got to middle school because the art teachers, if you were fortunate to have any, would have insisted you do things a certain way, and only the children who could produce an exact replica of some painting in a book would be considered good artists. What any "art lesson" in India would teach you is skill or craftsmanship, but it would not let you expand your creativity. Most India musicians become very skilled at their craft by rigorous practice, but are they creative?
This happens to be the main reason that holds me back when I consider moving back to India. Everybody praises the education system, and how the curriculum there is much advanced. I'd rather have a somewhat inferior system, but one that encourages exploration and provides room for failures and fresh starts.
Monday, January 11, 2010
Polenta squares
I saw these as an idea for school lunchbox, and adapted for my taste. My girls like these warm, but refuse to take them in their lunchbox. I do not understand the workings of a tween mind.
1 cup polenta (coarse cornmeal)
4 cups water or stock
1 tsp salt
1 tsp olive oil
1/2 tsp cayenne pepper
Grease the bottom and sides of a 8x8 cake or other shallow pan.
In a a large saucepan bring the water to a boil on high heat. Add oil, salt and cayenne. Reduce heat to med-high and slowly add polenta in a stream to the water, while mixing with a wire-whisk. Once all the polenta is incorporated, reduce heat to med and cook stirring frequently and scraping the sides and bottom, until the mixture comes together and leaves the sides of the pan, about 30 minutes. You will have to stir much more frequently towards the end of the cooking time, and constantly for the last five minutes.
Remove from heat and pour into the prepared pan. Flatten the surface and let cool. Cut into squares using a sharp knife. These can be eaten plain, with marinara sauce, green chutney or with the following tempering poured on top.
Tempering
2 tbsp canola oil
1 tsp mustard seeds
4 curry leaves
Heat oil to smoking in a small saucepan. Add mustard seeds and curry leaves. As the mustard seeds start popping (in just a few seconds), take off the heat and pour over the polenta. Garnish with grated coconut and chopped cilantro.
1 cup polenta (coarse cornmeal)
4 cups water or stock
1 tsp salt
1 tsp olive oil
1/2 tsp cayenne pepper
Grease the bottom and sides of a 8x8 cake or other shallow pan.
In a a large saucepan bring the water to a boil on high heat. Add oil, salt and cayenne. Reduce heat to med-high and slowly add polenta in a stream to the water, while mixing with a wire-whisk. Once all the polenta is incorporated, reduce heat to med and cook stirring frequently and scraping the sides and bottom, until the mixture comes together and leaves the sides of the pan, about 30 minutes. You will have to stir much more frequently towards the end of the cooking time, and constantly for the last five minutes.
Remove from heat and pour into the prepared pan. Flatten the surface and let cool. Cut into squares using a sharp knife. These can be eaten plain, with marinara sauce, green chutney or with the following tempering poured on top.
Tempering
2 tbsp canola oil
1 tsp mustard seeds
4 curry leaves
Heat oil to smoking in a small saucepan. Add mustard seeds and curry leaves. As the mustard seeds start popping (in just a few seconds), take off the heat and pour over the polenta. Garnish with grated coconut and chopped cilantro.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Is reading good?
I recently finished reading the book Twilight, the first book in an extremely popular series about a romance between a vampire and a teenage girl. I hated the book. There is the usual problem systemic of the romance novel genre - weak plot and average writing. However, I also found the book quite disturbing. The vampire, although he looks like a teenager, is in fact almost 100 years old. His body hasn’t aged but his mind does have all that experience, and there he is – romancing this 17 year old girl. Not only that, he comes to her room to watch her sleep without her knowing this. To me this was not romantic, but quite creepy. This brings up two issues in my mind.
First is the concept of romance itself. I will admit that romance has never been my genre. In high school, a lot of girls used to read these romance novels, so I tried some too. Most of these were terrible. It is not that I am too cynical to believe in love or romance, I just don’t buy the version that these books try to peddle. I can enjoy books with love stories - I just require that they be well written with interesting and complex characters. Somebody once said that Women only love "love" i.e. women don’t fall in love with a person but with the fact that, that person loves them. That might explain the popularity of romance novels among women. But doesn’t that just continue to perpetrate the delusion?
The second issue is whether I would let my daughter read a book such as Twilight. I have often been presented with the argument that whatever gets a child to read is good enough. Parents of children who are on the internet all the time say “Well at least she is reading!”. But I wonder - does reading just for the sake of reading provide any value once we are beyond the stage of teaching a child how to read? Presumably a teenager knows how to read, so should her habit of reading romance novels be encouraged using the argument "at least she is reading”. Aren’t we forgetting why reading is glorified in the first place? Reading books is useful because it expands one’s horizons and encourages new ideas. That is why we want children to read. Do romance novels serve that purpose? To me it seems like they contract rather than expand the mind. So should we let children read anything, just because they are reading?
First is the concept of romance itself. I will admit that romance has never been my genre. In high school, a lot of girls used to read these romance novels, so I tried some too. Most of these were terrible. It is not that I am too cynical to believe in love or romance, I just don’t buy the version that these books try to peddle. I can enjoy books with love stories - I just require that they be well written with interesting and complex characters. Somebody once said that Women only love "love" i.e. women don’t fall in love with a person but with the fact that, that person loves them. That might explain the popularity of romance novels among women. But doesn’t that just continue to perpetrate the delusion?
The second issue is whether I would let my daughter read a book such as Twilight. I have often been presented with the argument that whatever gets a child to read is good enough. Parents of children who are on the internet all the time say “Well at least she is reading!”. But I wonder - does reading just for the sake of reading provide any value once we are beyond the stage of teaching a child how to read? Presumably a teenager knows how to read, so should her habit of reading romance novels be encouraged using the argument "at least she is reading”. Aren’t we forgetting why reading is glorified in the first place? Reading books is useful because it expands one’s horizons and encourages new ideas. That is why we want children to read. Do romance novels serve that purpose? To me it seems like they contract rather than expand the mind. So should we let children read anything, just because they are reading?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)